Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,285
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + +
no edit summary
[[Davies]] insisted that Anselm's argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. In other words, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument is therefore [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to an existent of God to an existent God, and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.
[[Davies]] insisted that Anselm's argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. In other words, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument is therefore [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to an existent of God to an existent God, and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]